Functional foods accounted for over 11% of the total EPA & DHA ingredients market share in 2014, with consumption estimated at approximately 10.5 kilo tons. This application is likely to attain significant gains during the forecast period.

FDA approval towards health claims for coronary heath diseases, and American Dietetic Association, for suggestion of minimum intake at close to 500mg per day, is likely to favor omega-3 market size.

Other key insights from the report include:

Global EPA/DHA ingredients market size was evaluated at 93.69 kilo tons in 2014 with forecast to attain growth rate at 5.4% up to 2022 and reach 142.5 kilo tons.

North America was the leading regional consumer industry in 2014, and accounted for over 36% of the total demand. Pharmaceutical application in the North American EPA/DHA ingredients market generated revenues worth approximately USD 86 million in 2014.

Functional food applications in North America accounted for close to 10% of the total demand, and are expected to be an attractive growth segment for this industry over the forecast period.

China’s omega 3 market accounted for over 10% of the total demand in 2014 and is likely to significantly grow during the forecast period. Dietary supplement application was dominant in China and is likely to witness highest CAGR, at 6.1% up to 2022.

EPA/DHA ingredients market share represents moderate consolidation with the top four key players accounting for close to 54% of the demand.

Nitrogen pollution reductions lagging, EPA warns

Pennsylvania, New York leave Baywide cleanup effort short of interim goals

The Susquehanna River, the Bay's largest tributary, carries nutrient and sediment pollution from Pennsylvania and New York. Efforts to curtail a key nutrient, nitrogen, have fallen behind because of lagging cleanup progress in those two states, EPA says. (Karl Blankenship)

The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has fallen behind by almost 25 percent in reducing a key pollutant because of lagging progress in Pennsylvania and New York, federal regulators warned Friday.

The Bay cleanup plan imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency at the end of 2010 had called for 60 percent of the actions needed to restore Bay water quality to be in place by the end of next year — roughly halfway to the 2025 deadline the states had agreed upon.

Now, it appears the majority of the action to control nitrogen — the prime nutrient affecting algae growth in the Bay’s saltier water —may be left until late in the cleanup process, something officials had hoped to avoid.

“Overall, we continue to make progress, however, there are some sectors in some states where we are falling behind,” said Shawn Garvin, EPA’s Mid-Atlantic regional administrator, in releasing the agency’s latest evaluation of state efforts. “We recognize that based on actions taken to date, and the current projections, that it is unlikely that we will meet” the 2017 goals.

After analyzing progress made by each of the seven jurisdictions in the Bay watershed in 2014-15, and their expected efforts through 2017, the EPA expects Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia will meet their interim goals for nitrogen phosphorus and sediment reductions, although not all were on pace to do that at the end of last year.

New York is expected to miss goals for all three pollutants, though, and Pennsylvania will miss the nitrogen and phosphorus goal.

EPA officials said they believed New York had adequate programs set up to ultimately get its cleanup back on track. Much more problematic is Pennsylvania, which Garvin said faces a “significant lift” to reach its goals. The state accounts for 89 percent of the 10 million-pound Baywide nitrogen shortfall projected for the end of next year.

The Bay cleanup plan, or pollution diet, called for reducing the amount of nitrogen entering the Bay annually from 260.2 million pounds in 2010 to 219.5 million pounds by 2017.

Pennsylvania officials in January announced plans to “reboot” the state’s cleanup efforts, but the EPA said what it’s seen so far is not enough to get the commonwealth back on track to meet its 2025 goals.

EPA’s review said Pennsylvania would need to place “considerably greater emphasis” on controlling runoff from agriculture, an effort that has suffered from years of underfunding and understaffing.

The agency also expressed doubt that the state could meet its stormwater goals, and suggested that some of that shortfall be shifted to other sectors, such as wastewater treatment plants, where nutrient reductions are ahead of schedule.

Federal regulators warned that when Pennsylvania develops a new strategy to guide cleanup efforts from 2018 through 2025, the agency may require state officials to provide more documentation than other states about the adequacy of their plans.

EPA officials also warned they could take a variety of other actions if greater progress is not made, such as increasing oversight of how federal grant money is spent, and expanding regulatory programs to cover smaller farm animal feeding operations.

Neil Shader, press secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, acknowledged cleanup efforts lagged from “years of inaction” that preceded the administration of Gov. Tom Wolf, but said state agencies are working with conservation districts and stakeholders to accelerate nutrient control efforts.

“Through the administration’s “reboot” strategy, we will build on these early successes and continue to identify additional pollution reduction opportunities and engage with the public to bring every possible resource to the effort,” Shader said.

But Harry Campbell, Pennsylvania executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state lacked adequate funding to enact its programs. It’s “unclear,” he added, “when or if those vital resources will be made available.”

While other states were making better progress, the review offered hints of future concerns.

Much of the reductions so far have come from wastewater treatment plants, which account for about three-quarters of all nitrogen reductions since 2010. The wastewater facilities already have achieved their share of the overall nitrogen reduction goal for 2025.

But that means about 71 percent of future nitrogen reductions will need to come from agriculture, where progress has been more difficult to achieve. EPA’s review showed that through 2015, farming operations in Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and Maryland all lagged in meeting their nitrogen reduction goals.

Nitrogen reductions from the heavily agricultural watersheds of the Susquehanna River and the Eastern Shore are essential to reducing the oxygen-starved dead zone in the upper Bay.

“We recognized from the outset that our agricultural sector is an area that we continue to need to work with,” Garvin said. He said the agency is working with the states to get programs in place to help meet the goals, find additional resources and target programs to areas that would be most effective.

Besides citing problems in Pennsylvania, the agency also downgraded its rating of Delaware’s agricultural program to “enhanced oversight” because of concerns over implementation of its permitting program for livestock operations and its nutrient management program.

In a statement, Delaware officials said they considered EPA’s evaluation “fair and objective” but expressed a “continued commitment” to reduce nitrogen from agriculture, stormwater, wastewater and septic systems.

Pennsylvania, New York and Maryland face an extra challenge as they may need to find ways to offset additional nutrients which are no longer being trapped behind Conowingo Dam, and are flowing into the Bay from the Susquehanna. As part of its review, the EPA told all three states that they need to work together to develop a strategy to achieve pollution reductions beyond those originally planned.

The state-federal Bay Program is in the midst of a multi-year review of cleanup progress. That midpoint assessment, when complete next year, is likely to show even greater pollution reduction shortfalls for all jurisdictions as it takes into account phosphorus-saturated soils, climate change, land-use changes and other issues.

While the EPA review found the region was on track overall to meet phosphorus and sediment goals, the agency warned that could change once the midpoint assessment is complete., The EPA said that “changes in levels of effort may be necessary in order to achieve the 2025 targets for all three pollutants.”

“We recognize that coming out of the midpoint assessment … things are just going to get more and more difficult, and we are committed to working together to accomplish those goals.” Garvin added.

The EPA in 2010 established a Baywide cleanup plan, known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, that established annual limits on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment — the pollutants primarily responsible for fouling the Chesapeake ’s water quality.

Because of the failure of previous cleanup plans to meet deadlines, the EPA and states set a series of two-year goals, known as milestones, to help keep efforts on track toward the interim 2017, and ultimate 2025, goals.

Nonetheless, William Baker, the bay foundation’s president, noted that the previous two years was the third straight milestone period in which Pennsylvania missed its goals.

“It is well past time for Pennsylvania to accelerate its pollution reduction efforts, and EPA must do more to ensure that Pennsylvania obeys the law, he said.

Dwindling catch, marine pollution worry fishermen

Fishermen removing garbage that entered the net along with the catch, in Visakhapatnam. —PHOTO: K.R. DEEPAK

n estimated 3.25 lakh fishermen living in 133 hamlets in Visakhapatnam district are seething with anger due to dwindling catch and marine pollution causing fish-kill.

There is phenomenal increase in incidents of fish-kill as well as fishing areas becoming ‘dead zones’ due to rapid industrialisation and urbanisation leading to less extent of fishing area in the territorial waters within two km area from the shore and discharge of sewage by GVMC and effluents by the industries.

The number of fishing days has been reduced to 270 in a year on account of annual fishing holiday and formation of various systems in the Bay. In reality, fishermen just have 120 fishing days.

The sea used to be very clean two decades ago. Now it is muddy due to changing climate and rise in industrial pollution. According to unofficial estimates fish catch has come down from 1.35 lakh tonne per annum 15 to 20 years ago to 85,000 tonne. Overexploitation following increase in number of boats is also said to be one of the factors for falling catch.

Enquiries with GVMC have revealed that the city is generating an estimated 220 million gallons per day of sewage (170 in 2001) of which 96 MLD of ‘treated’ sewage is discharged into sea.

The rest goes into the sea through storm water drainage without any treatment. GVMC is building a sewage treatment plant at Narava with a capacity of 104 MLD.

An official of AP Pollution Control Board has said 425 MLD water used by various industries is discharged into sea through pipelines in addition to five MLD of industrial effluents under its ‘vigilant eye’. “Guard ponds (where testing is done to ensure compliance to emission standards), are being set up for RINL and HPCL which discharge an estimated six MLD of effluents, by December 31 as per the directive of Central Pollution Control Board,” he says.

Fishermen say due to NTPC Simhadri, Pharma City and other industries, 30-km area near Mutyalammapalem and Tikkavanipalem has become a dead zone for fishing. Similarly, due to steel plant and a private power plant, Appikonda, which used to be a major fishing landing centre, has become a dead zone.

“Pudimadaka, which has a population of 15,000, used to be a major hub for fishing a decade ago. Now fishermen here are struggling to meet their both ends meet after Brandix India Apparel City laid a pipeline into the sea to discharge the effluents by the garment plants that came at Atchutapuram,” says Arjili Dasu, a fishermen activist.

Former IAS officer and social activist E.A.S. Sarma says: “Visakhapatnam’s coastline sustains the livelihood of thousands of traditional fisherfolk, dependent on it for generations. Of late, despite rigorous environment laws in force, due to official apathy and connivance, the laws are violated and industries cause toxic pollution and other commercial establishments let out untreated sewage effluents.”

Shrinking shoreline a cause for concern

The coastline in Visakhapatnam district has effectively come down from 136 to 66 km due to establishment of various projects either on the shore or nearer to it.

Some of the major projects which have become operational on the coastline include NTPC Simhadri Super Thermal Power Project, Hinduja National Power Corporation, Brandix India Apparel City, Naval Alternative Operations Base, Hetero Drugs and a string of hatcheries in and around Payakaraopeta.

The shoreline has also shrunk by half a km, which experts from National Institute of Oceanography attribute to coastal erosion, massive constructions on the beach road as part of concrete jungle culture.

“We used to capture fish 50 to 60 metres from shore and now we have to go deep,” says Ch. Satyanarayana Murthy, a boat owner from Visakhapatnam.

Help “reset” the algae industry

es, push that red reset button to get the algae industry back on track, by nominating players who are making a real and positive contribution in the world of algae. Over this past decade, the Algae Industry has been dominated by big money chasing the mirage of commercial algae biofuels. My March 2011 post “Shakeout in Algae Biofuels” described shakeout scenarios about to unfold.

This great biofuel boom and bust raked in billions of dollars in government, corporate and private investment over the past decade, attracting charlatans and collaborators (some who knew better) who sucked up the public bandwidth about algae, burned investors, and discouraged many from funding algae ventures for food, feed and high-value products.

Failed biofuel companies may try to excuse themselves because the price of oil fell. A decade ago, experts with real algae experience could not identify a pathway to make algae biofuel cost competitive with conventional fuel even at higher fuel prices. Where is the path forward today?

Just a few years ago corporate suits were dismissing non-fuel products from algae as “co-products” for “niche” markets. Now they are gone. Their replacements at algae biofuel ventures have desperately tried to pivot to those niche markets and algae co-products like food, feed, nutraceuticals, high value oils and fine chemicals, to show a real income stream for their sponsors.

During this time, we have also learned about the barriers to the massive scale required for biofuel commercialization. This undermines the claim that bigger is better, and renews appreciation of small is beautiful.

Algae industry conferences use to open with a plenary panel of algae CEO “all-stars,” touting their big successes developing biofuels. One-by-one they have dropped away.

If 10% of the funding for algae biofuels had been directed into R&D for animal nutrition studies and cost reduction for algae aquaculture and animal feeds and human food, we would already be well along on this path. Growing algae for feed and food will have a far greater impact on reducing negative effects of climate change than biofuels ever would, and in doing so, we will support all sentient beings on this Earth.

Let’s reset our algae narrative. There is plenty of good news to share. Opportunities abound. Refocus on the real algae industry that offers real products and services from algae. Let’s nominate individuals and organizations that understand how to change the world. “Eat Algae, Don’t Burn It.”

An Overview of Trials Using Nualgi in Lagoon STPs and dams in Queensland, Australia

This blog post is somewhat more technical than some of the other posts I have done to date. The reason for this is that I am presenting actual data! Yes! The numbers are in and I have graphs, relationships and hypotheses to offer. So if you are interested in the more analytical side of things then I hope you enjoy this post. As we are moving towards summer here in Australia things are warming up so the cyanobacteria are getting more active and the use of Nualgi in these tests is going to get properly tested to see how good it is. I hope you enjoy the report and as always, feel free to contact me if you want to know more.

Nualgi is a nano-silica nutrient mixture that has all the micronutrients required for growth of diatom microalgae adsorbed into the amorphous nano-silica structure. As only diatoms have a requirement to take up silica, they are the only algae that benefit from the micro-nutrient boost. This means that the diatoms successfully out-compete the other algae for nutrients, and reduce blue-green algae growth in a natural way. The process is non-toxic and offers an added benefit in that bacterial activity is enhanced due to the increased dissolved oxygen content from the diatom bloom. This increase in dissolved oxygen and bacterial activity will assist in bringing down the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in the wastewater.

......

Summary

The three trials presented here are each slightly different in regard to the conditions of the STP or the water being treated. Trials 1 and 2 have both shown a strong change in the percentage of the BGA that make up the Total Cell count. A similar pattern may slowly be emerging in Trial 3 which has a lower N concentration.

The Total Cell Counts in all trials have been seen to reduce markedly from the starting values. Trial 2 has shown some recovery of non BGA algae, although this stage may be transitory as the lagoon continues to settle toward having a higher DO and lower BGA population.

Because of the increased activity of diatoms, especially benthic diatoms, induced by the addition of Nualgi there have been several positive changes to the water quality. In Trial 3, a reduction in the pH and a qualitative assessment that the invertebrate populations in the water have increased suggest that the water is progressively returning to a more stable environment in which algae other than BGAs may proliferate and the nutrients will shift from being retained in algal cycles and may now move up the food chain through the invertebrates and into higher animals such as fish, eels and birds.

Longer trials are needed to assess the long term use of Nualgi in managing nutrients and controlling Blue Green Algae growth, but these three trials are strongly indicative that the use of Nualgi is a simple and effective pathway to achieve this outcome.